United States v. Murray
736 F.3d 652
2d Cir.2013Background
- Murray was convicted on four counts relating to cultivating marijuana at a Queens house; sentence primarily 60 months with 8 years supervised release.
- The government used rebuttal evidence, including cell-site records and agent testimony about Tower 11 proximity to Cody’s house.
- Murray sought surrebuttal to respond to the rebuttal evidence; the district court denied this request.
- Cody testified as a cooperating witness and admitted his own involvement, blaming Murray.
- The government emphasized cell-site conclusions in summation, asserting 97 pings off Tower 11.
- The jury later requested the cell-site records during deliberations, and Murray’s conviction was entered after a four-count verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying surrebuttal | Murray | Government | Yes, reversal required (reversible error). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moody, 903 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1990) (surrebuttal when rebuttal introduces new issues)
- United States v. Wilson, 134 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard for surrebuttal)
- United States v. Alford, 999 F.2d 818 (5th Cir. 1993) (surrebuttal admissibility framework)
- United States v. Nektalov, 461 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2006) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Gaines, 170 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 1999) (surrebuttal to explain new facts in rebuttal)
- United States v. King, 879 F.2d 137 (4th Cir. 1989) (surrebuttal framework in narrow windows)